Shame it is painted on modern plywood with Acrylic paint, so it can't be genuine.

I now have that Picasso, three Picasso drawings, two Jean Cocteau, one Matisse, one Duchamp, two L S Lowry and one Cy Twombly. If any one of them is genuine I've bought a bargain.

It doesn't matter to me. I just like them, otherwise I wouldn't have bought them.

What surprises me is that they are listed on eBay among kitsch drawings of cats, dogs and Elvis. To me they stand out like gold in a pile of horse shit but obviously other people don't agree or I wouldn't be able to buy them so cheaply.

I don't think I'm unusual in liking what I've bought, but eBay viewing statistics for the drawing lots seem to suggest that kitsch cats get ten times as many viewers.

My local High School has an exhibition of their Art students' examination pieces. The students are 17 or 18 years old.

As expected from teenagers, there is a lot of angst, despair and decay. Skulls feature prominently.

But the overall impression is size. They have thought large. Some canvases are eight feet by six, vertical ten feet by three. The 3-dimensional works range from life-size human forms to a double bed mattress (Tracey Emin influence!), or spread across a couple of square yards.

The quality is variable, the techniques erratic, but the ideas are interesting. Talking to some of the exhibitors, they have realistic ambitions for their art. None of those I met expected to make a living as artists in their own right. They want to get employment where their artistic talents can be useful, or will continue their art as amateurs while earning their living in more traditional ways.

If one High School can produce this much talent, it is a shame that making a living from Art is so difficult.

Location: In the Scaphoid (within the confines of my own HUGE fantasy world)

Posts: 13,940

Quote:

Originally Posted by oggbashan

My local High School has an exhibition of their Art students' examination pieces. The students are 17 or 18 years old.

As expected from teenagers, there is a lot of angst, despair and decay. Skulls feature prominently.

But the overall impression is size. They have thought large. Some canvases are eight feet by six, vertical ten feet by three. The 3-dimensional works range from life-size human forms to a double bed mattress (Tracey Emin influence!), or spread across a couple of square yards.

The quality is variable, the techniques erratic, but the ideas are interesting. Talking to some of the exhibitors, they have realistic ambitions for their art. None of those I met expected to make a living as artists in their own right. They want to get employment where their artistic talents can be useful, or will continue their art as amateurs while earning their living in more traditional ways.

If one High School can produce this much talent, it is a shame that making a living from Art is so difficult.

it is a "shame". Sadly, our (at least in the U.S.) education system is in need of some serious overhaul. I am willing to cut back on the arts, when finaces are critical, as their are practical concerns about basic knowledge: literacy and math, history, science, trades. It is good to hear that those students grasp that, and also can embrace their creative endeavors.

it is a "shame". Sadly, our (at least in the U.S.) education system is in need of some serious overhaul. I am willing to cut back on the arts, when finaces are critical, as their are practical concerns about basic knowledge: literacy and math, history, science, trades. It is good to hear that those students grasp that, and also can embrace their creative endeavors.

The High School those students come from was in danger of closing about 20 years ago because of poor examination results in successive years and it was getting worse. Very few students stayed on beyond age 16, preferring to transfer anywhere to continue their studies.

The parents (and Og) campaigned to keep it open. Parental involvement (not Og) gradually changed the students' perception of their school. Knowing that the community valued and supported the school helped to reduce the problems of disaffected and disruptive students.

Now it has another problem. It is so popular that there are 3 times as many students wanting to go there as it has capacity. Its examination results are among the highest for that type of school. It has a high proportion of students staying on until age 18 - and it was those students that produced the Art Exhibition.

But the local area produces far too many Art (as in painting, sculpture etc) graduates than can possibly make a living as Artists.

There is unmet demand for Nursing, Health Workers and Social Workers but there aren't enough course places to met the need. Qualified Occupational Therapists are worth their weight in gold, but those who have jobs are so seriously overstretched that they are exhausted by their 40s.

If only there was some way of matching graduate job vacancies with students' preferred courses. But there isn't. There are too many artistic graduates in all fields and not enough practical graduates with marketable skills.

The current generation about to start University in England are beginning to recognise that the cost of their University education is an expensive waste of money if there are no reasonable employment prospects in that field.

Many of the young 'Artists' exhibiting see their Art as a sideline and are preparing to study other more 'useful' subjects at University IF they decide it is worth the expense of going there.

Location: In the Scaphoid (within the confines of my own HUGE fantasy world)

Posts: 13,940

MOVED from anoth thread becaus eof off-topicness

This conversation might be interesting to others, but went on in the "wrong" thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim_vegas

... Throbbs i..... He has very strong feelings for photoshop edited artwork, esp. the paintings and special effects. Although some people prefer to pay for this kind of work, but he will disagree and that too strongly.

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by THROBBS

I disagree, strongly. sorta.

I sometimes edit my OWN work in photoshop. I do believe (strongly) that Photoshop should* be used as a tool not a generator. I have done and know those who do legitimate digital paintings** in photoshop (and/or other applications)

I also would encourage people to pay (reasonably) for quality creative work.
If one can extort money for applying a filter, then you are a lucky weasel. Perhaps some are willing, because they do not have access to the programs.

*shoulda, woulda, coulda... and people shouldn't kill each other, people (me too, no really) should be kind. etc.

** a NON-legitimate digital "painting" is using the paint tools to alter a photo, which one did not take, to pass off as their own imaginative and creative work.

Even altering one's own photo that way, is pretty lame.

I do use photos for reference (not always), and I have collaged together photos for various purpose, but it is rare that is "Art" even when done with craftsmanship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LWulf

What is your take on digital "copy" work? I am a very good (okay more like "varying with interest") copy artist. If I see something, I can copy it reasonable well.
e.g. One artist was an excellent freehand artist. I would take their image, and post it next to my monitor screen. Sometimes I use a camera-obscura process and sometimes I just do it by eye.
And I replicate what I see digitally, thus what I call a "copy artist".

I used to be able to do "copy" work like this doing it freehand with pencil (or pen) and paper. At one time, I was very good with freehand artwork (completely original), but I haven't used that in more than 20 years and I don't have the same flair anymore.
I got too enamored with the straight edge or hard edge with regards to french curves.

Note: I am NOT talking about someone who "traces" artwork, when I describe "copy" work.

Hmm, I guess this is off topic for a "requests" thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by THROBBS

With regard to "copy work", as you call it: I think that can be good "practice" towards developing one's own style. I would not call it "art", so much as exercise in technique. Doing so freehand (either digitally or mechanically) is a better practice than tracing. Sometimes, at early stages of learning, tracing can be helpful to understand 2-dimensional layout, but as soon as possible I would recommend moving on from that.

my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LWulf

Well, mostly I would agree, but then I consider what my art teacher told me about someone who replicates master art work or doing refurbishing work for museums.

If I was a youngun' I'd probably agree with the "moving on" concept...

Quote:

Originally Posted by THROBBS

So, what did your art teacher tell you about someone who replicates master art work or doing refurbishing work for museums?

To me, that work (refurbishing work for museums) is valid work and requires a certain mastery, skill and craftsmanship, but is not "Art" in and of itself.

I am not a "youngun' " and I still HIGHLY recommend moving on, move forward, advance one's skills and ability to see. If one only replicates other's work, then one is not bringing forth anything truly new or imaginative.

Not sure if anybody is interested in this or not, but to answer Throbbs question of what my professor said about "restoring artwork or doing museum quality replications (typically also for museums)", but I'll try to sum up and reiterate in a more condensed form, what I said to Throbbs in PM;

Art is art. Whether you do creative original work or simply fix master's great works or make replications for museums, matters little about creativity and originality. Replicating work (for museums) and repairing great works can be highly lucrative for the select few who are qualified and have mastery of the arts themselves.

Sadly I lack the ability to master replication and lost the ability (or perhaps interest) to do original freehand works.

Not sure if anybody is interested in this or not, but to answer Throbbs question of what my professor said about "restoring artwork or doing museum quality replications (typically also for museums)", but I'll try to sum up and reiterate in a more condensed form, what I said to Throbbs in PM;

Art is art. Whether you do creative original work or simply fix master's great works or make replications for museums, matters little about creativity and originality. Replicating work (for museums) and repairing great works can be highly lucrative for the select few who are qualified and have mastery of the arts themselves.

Sadly I lack the ability to master replication and lost the ability (or perhaps interest) to do original freehand works.

One of my favourite places is the Cast Courts of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. In the 19th Century it was common for museums and public art galleries to make full size plaster casts of architectural details and statuary to educate Art students who wouldn't be able to travel to see the original works. It was a very skilled craft to make the copies as exact as possible without damaging the original.

European museums used to make copies of the works they owned, and exchange them with other museums. But in the 1930s those plaster casts became unfashionable, and during WW2 many were destroyed. The Victoria and Albert's collection is the best surviving one. Their copy of Trajan's Column is better than the original which has suffered a century of exposure to the weather - and you can get much closer to the copy than to the original. Or you can when they are open. They aren't at present.

Location: In the Scaphoid (within the confines of my own HUGE fantasy world)

Posts: 13,940

Quote:

Originally Posted by LWulf

Not sure if anybody is interested in this or not, but to answer Throbbs question of what my professor said about "restoring artwork or doing museum quality replications (typically also for museums)", but I'll try to sum up and reiterate in a more condensed form, what I said to Throbbs in PM;

Art is art. Whether you do creative original work or simply fix master's great works or make replications for museums, matters little about creativity and originality. Replicating work (for museums) and repairing great works can be highly lucrative for the select few who are qualified and have mastery of the arts themselves.

Sadly I lack the ability to master replication and lost the ability (or perhaps interest) to do original freehand works.

And I feel that LWulf's professor is mistaken. The answer to the question of validity of art does not lay in the amount of money that can be commanded. I distinguish between justcraftsmanship/technical-skill or justcreativity and Art (as a melding of both craftsmanship and creativity).

As a poor example; a good mechanic can fix a car, but that does not make him an automotive designer. The best automotive designer also understands how the car works. That is not to say that a mechanic cannot be an automotive designer.

...In the 19th Century it was common for museums and public art galleries to make full size plaster casts of architectural details and statuary to educate Art students who wouldn't be able to travel to see the original works. It was a very skilled craft to make the copies as exact as possible without damaging the original.

European museums used to make copies of the works they owned, and exchange them with other museums. But in the 1930s those plaster casts became unfashionable, and during WW2 many were destroyed. The Victoria and Albert's collection is the best surviving one. Their copy of Trajan's Column is better than the original which has suffered a century of exposure to the weather - and you can get much closer to the copy than to the original. Or you can when they are open...

I've heard of the Victoria and Albert collect but I have yet to see it. Couldn't they make copies from their copies and thus create a generation of better display pieces than the originals or have the copies been made with materials that making casts from them would mean destroying the original?

Quote:

Originally Posted by THROBBS

...The answer to the question of validity of art does not lay in the amount of money that can be commanded. I distinguish between justcraftsmanship/technical-skill or justcreativity and Art (as a melding of both craftsmanship and creativity).

As a poor example; a good mechanic can fix a car, but that does not make him an automotive designer. The best automotive designer also understands how the car works. That is not to say that a mechanic cannot be an automotive designer.

I didn't mean to suggest that an increased monetary base as being more worthy to denote "art" or "artist". I meant simply that it CAN be more lucrative to invest time in perfecting reproduction or repair skills over being an original artist. Again, not that it is easy either way, but considering my age and lesser skill set with doing any original work (that I have indeed lost that touch), it might be more worth my time trying to get my foot in the door doing repair or reproduction (as that is something I still retain better skills at).

I have to beg to differ Throbbs, I think I understood what my professor meant when he said, what he said.
There isn't any "how to" guides when it comes to repairing a master's painting for instance. Let's say someone was waving around a damacus steel sword and put a nice tear in the Mona Lisa. You could just say the piece is ruined for life and toss it on the garbage pile, or they could call in these master art restorers to repair it.

They have to sometimes cut away a larger section of the canvas and then use a repair patch to be woven back into place. They can't use modern canvas because that is made by machines and the original most certainly would have been made by hand, or at least less precise machines. After obtaining a hand crafted canvas that replicates the original they now have to weave it into place and make the repair seamless. Then they have to study pictures of the original, and try to "creatively" replicate the master's style. They need to use, in my opinion, sometimes more creativity and deduction and research regarding the original work than how much time was spent by the master themself.
Apologies if I'm restating what you already know about said profession, but I can't understand how you know what they would do and still feel it is less worthy to be called "art".

Are you going to say a architect is less an "artist" because he uses straight edges and scales? He certainly is using less craft, because he uses no freehand work, arguably less originality too.

Likewise too, does someone who is putting custom graphics on a car, and uses spray paints. He uses more freehand, but because they use a template to do parts of their work, then he is also less an artist and his work, less "art"? A car graphic painter is surely using more creative influence, but they might rely on mechanical means to get the job done just so as did the architect, meaning they needed less skill.

What about Andy Warhol? His portfolio was largely silkscreens, which requires very little craft at all, and some would say very little creativity too. Does that mean his work is less worthy to be called "art"?

My point is, if "art" can only be considered "art" by having an equal value between creativity (or originality) to craft (or talent), as you are saying reproducers and repairers are lacking, then fewer artisans than they can be considered truly "artists" doing "art".
My point is, where do you draw the line? You can either consider all the above artists, or none of them artists for lacking relevant equal values of creativity to craft.

By the english language alone, which derives from other root languages, "art" simply means "craft" or "skill" and has nothing to do with the creativity or originality behind it.
I could go on a side topic that creativity is simply a form of inspiration, and some master artists "inspiration" was simply to buy food to fill their empty stomachs.

Location: In the Scaphoid (within the confines of my own HUGE fantasy world)

Posts: 13,940

Quote:

Originally Posted by LWulf

I didn't mean to suggest that an increased monetary base as being more worthy to denote "art" or "artist". I meant simply that it CAN be more lucrative to invest time in perfecting reproduction or repair skills over being an original artist. Again, not that it is easy either way, but considering my age and lesser skill set with doing any original work (that I have indeed lost that touch), it might be more worth my time trying to get my foot in the door doing repair or reproduction (as that is something I still retain better skills at).

I have to beg to differ Throbbs, I think I understood what my professor meant when he said, what he said.
There isn't any "how to" guides when it comes to repairing a master's painting for instance. Let's say someone was waving around a damacus steel sword and put a nice tear in the Mona Lisa. You could just say the piece is ruined for life and toss it on the garbage pile, or they could call in these master art restorers to repair it.

They have to sometimes cut away a larger section of the canvas and then use a repair patch to be woven back into place. They can't use modern canvas because that is made by machines and the original most certainly would have been made by hand, or at least less precise machines. After obtaining a hand crafted canvas that replicates the original they now have to weave it into place and make the repair seamless. Then they have to study pictures of the original, and try to "creatively" replicate the master's style. They need to use, in my opinion, sometimes more creativity and deduction and research regarding the original work than how much time was spent by the master themself.
Apologies if I'm restating what you already know about said profession, but I can't understand how you know what they would do and still feel it is less worthy to be called "art".

Are you going to say a architect is less an "artist" because he uses straight edges and scales? He certainly is using less craft, because he uses no freehand work, arguably less originality too.

Likewise too, does someone who is putting custom graphics on a car, and uses spray paints. He uses more freehand, but because they use a template to do parts of their work, then he is also less an artist and his work, less "art"? A car graphic painter is surely using more creative influence, but they might rely on mechanical means to get the job done just so as did the architect, meaning they needed less skill.

What about Andy Warhol? His portfolio was largely silkscreens, which requires very little craft at all, and some would say very little creativity too. Does that mean his work is less worthy to be called "art"?

My point is, if "art" can only be considered "art" by having an equal value between creativity (or originality) to craft (or talent), as you are saying reproducers and repairers are lacking, then fewer artisans than they can be considered truly "artists" doing "art".
My point is, where do you draw the line? You can either consider all the above artists, or none of them artists for lacking relevant equal values of creativity to craft.

By the english language alone, which derives from other root languages, "art" simply means "craft" or "skill" and has nothing to do with the creativity or originality behind it.
I could go on a side topic that creativity is simply a form of inspiration, and some master artists "inspiration" was simply to buy food to fill their empty stomachs.

Your professor is a numbnut.

If we are to label anything as "Art" then we had better make a distinction as to what that means. If we are to call everything that is made by man "Art", with or without creativity and/or skill, then any sidewalk is art, any bridge is art, any hammer is art, any refrigerator is art. All those things can (and in my mind should be made with craftsmanship and even some measure of creativity)...the other ingredient to "Art" (in my mind) is a message, communication, which is something that is not required in a craft.

Your etymology is obsolete. Since before the 1800's, and perhaps earlier, the concept of "Art" and "artists" as something beyond a craftsperson has developed.
"Art" is not just something finely crafted, not just a good likeness of a prospective bride, not just an embellishment to a building, not just an idol to be prayed to. That may well be the origins or the word, but as with all things human, it has changed with culture and context. I do not see why one can have either all or none, as you propose. I say there truly are far fewer true artists. Also, with all things (not just human) there is a spectrum, of course. I did not say equal parts", but I do insist that both creativity and skill are prerequisites... as is the message (since we are getting deeper into this)

Andy Warhol was extremely creative, much like Duchamp, they both pushed the boundaries of what we know as Art and in doing so continued that morphing of the meaning. They HAD messages. I also will argue that that message has been given, as has Jackson Pollock's. To repeat those messages is not being creative, it is regurgitating.

Your reference to an architect (or car graphics applicator) is absurd. The use of tools is not a criteria that I have suggested. In fact, a wise Artist (and craftsperson) will use whatever tool is appropriate. And... IF the Car Painter uses only someone else's stencils, I would say they are, indeed, less of an Artist and more of a craftsperson. And further, if the result is sloppy or unaesthetic, less so still. A spectrum.

Your professor is a numbnut.If we are to label anything as "Art" then we had better make a distinction as to what that means. If we are to call everything that is made by man, with or without creativity and/or skill, then any sidewalk is art, any bridge is art, any hammer is art, any refrigerator is art. All those things can (and in my mind should be made with craftsmanship and even some measure of creativity)...the other ingredient to "Art" (in my mind) is a message, communication, which is something that is not required in a craft.

Your etymology is obsolete. Since before the 1800's, and perhaps earlier, the concept of "Art" and "artists" as something beyond a craftsperson has developed.
"Art" is not just something finely crafted, not just a good likeness of a prospective bride, not just an embellishment to a building, not just an idol to be prayed to. That may well be the origins or the word, but as with all things human, it has changed with culture and context. I do not see why one can have either all or none, as you propose. I say there truly are far fewer true artists. Also, with all things (not just human) there is a spectrum, of course. I did not say equal parts", but I do insist that both creativity and skill are prerequisites... as is the message (since we are getting deeper into this)

Andy Warhol was extremely creative, much like Duchamp, they both pushed the boundaries of what we know as Art and in doing so continued that morphing of the meaning. They HAD messages. I also will argue that that message has been given, as has Jackson Pollock's. To repeat those messages is not being creative, it is regurgitating.

Your reference to an architect (or car graphics applicator) is absurd. The use of tools is not a criteria that I have suggested. In fact, a wise Artist (and craftsperson) will use whatever tool is appropriate. And... IF the Car Painter uses only someone else's stencils, I would say they are, indeed, less of an Artist and more of a craftsperson. And further, if the result is sloppy or unaesthetic, less so still. A spectrum.

The point of any professor, especially in college, is to challenge what you define and understand, to make you understand it better. In that regard, yes, my professor(s) was, as you call, a numbnut(s).

Now I DIDN'T say "tools mean artless" because, hello, what do painters use, their fingers?? They use paintbrushes and palettes and palette knives which are all tools.
Neither did I mention automotive painters using "stencils", I said "templates". As in a french curve or circle. Something to give a hard edge to their spray painted work.
Okay, perhaps that was a "tit for tat" for my using "equal values" but I ran out of ways to simply describe that you felt "creativity" was equally needed in art as much as "craft". Thereby I said "equal values" to make it brief.

The reason I mentioned automotive custom painters is because they rely on a hard edge to do what they can't do with free hand. Some people maintain that anybody using tools that prevent "free hand" is thereby not an artist. Similar to an architect who uses even less freehand.
What I tried to do by mentioning an Architect, an auto-painter and Warhol, was to give a spectrum of varying, what I will call, "artists" with progressively less free hand use or creativity.
What I was trying to say was "Does the use of a tool to prevent free hand, demote or promote classification as 'art'?" Does a painter using painter's tape to mask off an area, mean they are doing something more or less skillful?

What I was trying to suggest by way of example was the reverse of what you said. "Does the absence of "skill" mean the absence of art?" or; "Does 'art by mechanical means' mean the absence of art?"

I'm not going to discuss a "message" in art, although that likewise was something my, as you say, numbnut professor(s) mentioned as being a part of art. I strenuously disagreed with them too and don't wish to broach that topic again.
I DO believe that a work doesn't have to have even a hint of a message and yet still be called "art".

I can see we are not going to go any further than our own opinions on age or the proper use of words in the modern world yet still being in the dictionary, so irregardless, I will not discuss that further. And I don't want to start WW3 by telling my views on Shepard Fairley er...I mean Andy Warhol.

Location: In the Scaphoid (within the confines of my own HUGE fantasy world)

Posts: 13,940

Quote:

Originally Posted by LWulf

The point of any professor, especially in college, is to challenge what you define and understand, to make you understand it better. In that regard, yes, my professor(s) was, as you call, a numbnut(s).
If that was your professor(s)' goal then (in that regard) they are not what I would call "numbnut(s)". However the way you presented it, sounded more as a statement than a hypothesis.

Now I DIDN'T say "tools mean artless" because (No, you did not, that was implied in your questioning), hello, what do painters use, their fingers?? They use paintbrushes and palettes and palette knives which are all tools.
Neither did I mention automotive painters using "stencils", I said "templates". As in a french curve or circle. Something to give a hard edge[ to their spray painted work. Sorry, I misunderstood your vision of templates.
Okay, perhaps that was a "tit for tat" for my using "equal values" but I ran out of ways to simply describe that you felt "creativity" was equally needed in art as much as "craft". Thereby I said "equal values" to make it brief. (nothing has been "brief")

The reason I mentioned automotive custom painters is because they rely on a hard edge to do what they can't do with free hand. Some people maintain that anybody using tools that prevent "free hand" is thereby not an artist. Similar to an architect who uses even less freehand.
What I tried to do by mentioning an Architect, an auto-painter and Warhol, was to give a spectrum of varying, what I will call, "artists" with progressively less free hand use or creativity.
What I was trying to say was "Does the use of a tool to prevent free hand, demote or promote classification as 'art'?" Does a painter using painter's tape to mask off an area, mean they are doing something more or less skillful? Not necessarily. What is the result? Do they use these tools creatively? Look at two Artists of the same era; Warhol and Pollock. One often used silkscreens (which you had suggested: "which requires very little craft at all.." have you ever silkcreened?), were Pollock "painted" FREEhand, and I would say with rather little "skill", but great intent.

What I was trying to suggest by way of example was the reverse of what you said. "Does the absence of "skill" mean the absence of art?" Yes or; "Does 'art by mechanical means' mean the absence of art?" Not necessarily.

I'm not going to discuss a "message" in art, although that likewise was something my, as you say, numbnut professor(s) mentioned as being a part of art. Hmmm. Perhaps the professor(s) were not "numbnuts", afterall... perhaps... I strenuously disagreed with them too and don't wish to broach that topic again.
I DO believe that a work doesn't have to have even a hint of a message and yet still be called "art". Ok. Then from what you have indicated: creativity is not required, or if it is, perhaps in problem solving. A message is not required, either. The only requirement for "art" is skill/craftsmanship. Is that what you mean?

I can see we are not going to go any further than our own opinions on age <(We have gone nowhere on this, you have not given you opinion on age, only that somehow it is a factor, to you.) or the proper use of words in the modern world yet still being in the dictionary, so irregardless < Speaking of words not in the dictionary., I will not discuss that further. And I don't want to start WW3 by telling my views on Shepard Fairley er...I mean Andy Warhol.

I will take you on your word that you:
"not going to discuss a 'message' in art"
"I will not discuss that (words) further"

The point of any professor, especially in college, is to challenge what you define and understand, to make you understand it better. In that regard, yes, my professor(s) was, as you call, a numbnut(s).

If that was your professor(s)' goal then (in that regard) they are not what I would call "numbnut(s)". However the way you presented it, sounded more as a statement than a hypothesis.It might be me, but I don't follow what you mean. I don't recall, ever, hearing a professor prefacing anything they state as hypothesis. Their contention was to upset our collective applecarts, not with rhetoric, but with a different perspective that challenged our "simple" perspective of the world. I see that more that they tried to establish points of contention with the intent to realign our way of thinking. They didn't say it in the form of a question but as a posit; a statement made on the assumption that it will prove to be true. Meh In that light perhaps it is hypothesis.

Now I DIDN'T say "tools mean artless" because (No, you did not, that was implied in your questioning)I would contend you developed an inference from what I said, but let's leave it there, hello, what do painters use, their fingers?? They use paintbrushes and palettes and palette knives which are all tools.
Neither did I mention automotive painters using "stencils", I said "templates". As in a french curve or circle. Something to give a hard edge[ to their spray painted work. Sorry, I misunderstood your vision of templates.
Okay, perhaps that was a "tit for tat" for my using "equal values" but I ran out of ways to simply describe that you felt "creativity" was equally needed in art as much as "craft". Thereby I said "equal values" to make it brief. (nothing has been "brief")lol Granted and to forestall further quibbling, perhaps I should have said "brief-er". I don't think you'd disagree that I have a tendency to babble on, so shouldn't any attempt I make to use briefer statements be applauded?

The reason I mentioned automotive custom painters is because they rely on a hard edge to do what they can't do with free hand. Some people maintain that anybody using tools that prevent "free hand" is thereby not an artist. Similar to an architect who uses even less freehand.
What I tried to do by mentioning an Architect, an auto-painter and Warhol, was to give a spectrum of varying, what I will call, "artists" with progressively less free hand use or creativity.
What I was trying to say was "Does the use of a tool to prevent free hand, demote or promote classification as 'art'?" Does a painter using painter's tape to mask off an area, mean they are doing something more or less skillful? Not necessarily. What is the result? Do they use these tools creatively? Look at two Artists of the same era; Warhol and Pollock. One often used silkscreens (which you had suggested: "which requires very little craft at all.." have you ever silkcreened? No, I haven't, my sister has though and I watched her do it, does that count? By YOUR definition (implied), "IF the Car Painter uses only someone else's stencils, I would say they are, indeed, less of an Artist" then to take a certain liberty with your previous statement "a NON-legitimate digital "painting" is using the paint tools to alter a photo, which one did not take, to pass off as their own imaginative and creative work." In light of those statements and what you herald about Warhol, it would suggest you are of mixed opinion where an artist sometimes can use another's work even though that might be in a limited sense creative. Personally, I look at Warhol as being an artist, though not a "high art" artist (more on that later) He was innovative but not creative and in that regard, not original (In that light, by your definition, Warhol had no creativity, no originality, thus he did not do "art"? (all he had was skill))., were Pollock "painted" FREEhand, and I would say with rather little "skill", but great intent.

What I was trying to suggest by way of example was the reverse of what you said. "Does the absence of "skill" mean the absence of art?" Yes or; "Does 'art by mechanical means' mean the absence of art?" Not necessarily.

I'm not going to discuss a "message" in art, although that likewise was something my, as you say, numbnut professor(s) mentioned as being a part of art. Hmmm. Perhaps the professor(s) were not "numbnuts", afterall... perhaps...LOL I am SHOCKED you've questioned you stance on them now that they agree with your viewpoint! I strenuously disagreed with them too and don't wish to broach that topic again. but apparently I must in part at least
I DO believe that a work doesn't have to have even a hint of a message and yet still be called "art". Ok. Then from what you have indicated: creativity is not required, or if it is, perhaps in problem solving. A message is not required, either. The only requirement for "art" is skill/craftsmanship. Is that what you mean?By the etymology (historical meaning) of the word, yes. However, modern "art" has put even craft and/or skill into question.
To me, there is "high art" which has messages and originality and "fine" craftsmanship, and there is "low art" which might have little to none of the qualifiers that exemplify "high art".
Consider: refrigerator art (that which is made by children and posted by proud parents (clarification of the example of "refrigerator art": does the skill level of an artist designate what can't be considered art? A child's attempt at art is a simplified conceptualization), or some forms of abstract art which simply required an artist to toss paint in the backwash of a jet that haphazardly shot the paint onto a canvas in the background. Did that require "skill"? Heck no, yet it was televised back in c.1978 and heralded as "art". There are certain forms of "art" that don't require skill, in my opinion, but nothing more than luck and a personal viewpoint of that artist that a random happening that they instigated resulted in a form of art "worthy" of them.
There was an artist, somewhat recently, who used chewed bubblegum of varying colors to create a stippled surface (on a wall or large section of board). He called that "art". Did it require any skill? No. Did it require any creativity? Arguably no, because he didn't do it in any pattern or recognizable design. Were the colors themselves in any pattern of blending or contrast? No, but again that could be argued. Personally I am loathe to call it "art" or else I have been practicing my artcraft of the bottom of school desks over the years! However, personal appeal does not qualify or disqualify the status of a "work of art".

I can see we are not going to go any further than our own opinions on age <(We have gone nowhere on this, you have not given you opinion on age, only that somehow it is a factor, to you.)Throbbs, we have gone over this in PM sufficiently, must we rehash that discussion here too? Work with me on this... The whole point of that part of our discussion has been how MY age is a factor (or not, from your POV). If you wish to broaden the original topic to include age in general, I MIGHT have an agreeing POV, but for brevity sake, let's consider that topic closed? or the proper use of words in the modern world yet still being in the dictionary, so irregardless < Speaking of words not in the dictionary., Apparently you missed my sarcastic parting shot or were unaware that "irregardless" IS in the dictionary LIKE "original and creative" is in the dictionary to define what "art" means. Presence in the dictionary doesn't mean something is proper nor of acceptable use. I will not discuss that further. And I don't want to start WW3 by telling my views on Shepard Fairley er...I mean Andy Warhol. Apparently I need to go back on what I said in light of what I stated above

I would point out that the whole miasma of what has been stated, by the both of us, above (below for me, but never the less), was all with the intent of proving out what qualifies as the definition of "art". If we are not going to "... discuss that (words) further" then hasn't the point of further discourse been rendered moot? *shrug*

Location: In the Scaphoid (within the confines of my own HUGE fantasy world)

Posts: 13,940

Ok. I understand that visual artists (and literary artists and musical artists..and...) have sensitive egos. The whole matter of presenting something that we have created, to the public , is fraught with potential anxiety. That being said, if we do make something public, then it becomes "fair game" for review/critique/appraisal, right?

.
As expected from teenagers, there is a lot of angst, despair and decay. Skulls feature prominently

. This made me laugh. So true.

Quote:

. I understand that LIT is a sex/erotica themed site and lends itself to "flirting", so I also "get" (but am often annoyed) by "gushing" over crappy "art" as a suck-up.

. I have always been a suck up..sorry

Hi everyone conversing.

__________________

Far
Far from the kindness of your eyes
And the soft, warm volumes you claim
In the world of touch and sight
Bereft of your approving smile
Craving your apple scented skin
I go about each day
As one who, never needing hope,
Now lives with fear of its loss,
Who, never having comfort,
Now takes so much in you,
Who, afraid to be seen,
Has dropped my armor to rust in the grass.
.....................Vikarious 2011

Location: In the Scaphoid (within the confines of my own HUGE fantasy world)

Posts: 13,940

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tio_Narratore

You don't have to like it to understand it, and like is no substitute for understanding. Go ahead and like what you want, but don't imagine it's any more than your opinion.

Further, I think to fully appreciate a work, you need to understand it. To understand a piece is largely on the Artist's ability to communicate, but to a degree, also on the viewer.

If a viewer does not have the knowledge of references or allegory(if any are made/used) for example, then the experience is diminished. I believe that an Artist should understand his own message and who his audience is in order to be most effective.